Published On: Thu, Aug 17th, 2017

Analysis of “Things to Come”, Part One: Mystery Babylon does all the war

Previously at FBEL it was shown how the movie “Interstellar” is a prime example (par excellence, in fact) of messaging by the people who rule the West. This article is a follow up, showing that the messaging has been going on since film was understood, by those who would propagandise, to be a device of mass indoctrination. Indeed, films such as “Things to Come”, the 1936 version of HG Wells’ “The Shape of Things to Come” (published in 1933), allow us to see exactly the same messaging, indicating that the people who rule the West were the same at the start of the 20th century as they were at its end (with the main political parties merely fronting for them to give the impression of the empowerment of people). To be precise, this article is going to be the first of a two-part follow up, because there is an aspect of the “Things to Come” that must be studied in support of revisionist history – that is, the notion that World War II was engineered by the British Government, or rather, a faction of the Western elite parasitically attached to the British people. HG Wells is called a prophet because of foresight demonstrated in the content of certain works. Or, was it more likely that this one-time member of the Fabian Society (essentially Masonic in nature – its progeny, Labour, has a Sun symbol as its logo, so it has this at least in common with the Nazis) was producing propaganda to condition an audience for the prospect of war? This question is attended to in this, the first article, and a comparison with “Interstellar” will be the subject of the second.

A disclaimer – the author has not yet read HG Wells’ original book version. It is on order at long last, for it is a book that perhaps should be staple for those looking to unstitch the lies of official history from the fabric of contemporary existence. For this piece a Wikipedia plot summary was consulted, and the chapter in the book on the European War from 1940 was found online and read. The film can be found on Youtube if the reader wants to watch it. Wells apparently was involved in the writing of the screenplay, and so we can be confident that it represents the same ideas as the book. Indeed, Wikipedia reports this:

The dialogue and plot were devised by H. G. Wells as “a new story” meant to display the “social and political forces and possibilities” that he had outlined in his 1933 story The Shape of Things to Come, a work he considered less a novel than a “discussion” in fictional form that presented itself as the notes of a 22nd-century diplomat.

Many a historian will say that the end of the First World War was the cause of the Second. It does seem to be common currency to attribute provocation for German expansionism to the sense of injustice created by the Treaty of Versailles. A British school child might have learnt about the reoccupation of the Rhineland, but perhaps not about the efforts to link Gdansk – a “free city” under Versailles, but with a predominantly German population – through the Danzig Corridor (made Polish by Versailles) back to western German political borders.

The Poles, in return for transport routes across the corridor, would have got things ranging from access to the anti-Comintern pact, an extension to a non-aggression agreement with their German neighbours, and even support for territorial claims in Ukraine, the Baltics, and Czechoslovakia. However, feeling bullish by support from the French and therefore the British through alliances, the Poles turned down the German proposals – which eventually, perhaps inevitably, turned into an ultimatum.

And so, arguably, the Danzig Corridor could have been the cause of the Second World War – at least the portion of it that went on in Europe; it’s quite the coincidence that Wells also predicted that the territory would provide the roots of a devastating 15-year long war in his novel. And so it is perhaps incredibly telling that in the film version there is a moment where the audience is allowed to see a newspaper article that seems to blame tension leading to war on a “straits dispute”. A strait, of course, is a slip of water between two larger seas – and so this is not in any way a reference to the Danzig Corridor [even if it still suggests it]. While we could say that this is in keeping with the film whereby the protagonist countries remain anonymous, we can also wonder if there would be a concern amongst the people who produced the film that those with long memories would become concerned that they had once seen the real cause of the Second World War cited a few years previously in a work of fiction – not to mention those who would see it during any later re-showings.

Wells envisioned Poland holding its own against Germany – much longer than the matter of days it took the country to be defeated in the real war. In fact, Wells was certain of a lengthy catastrophe – a quagmire of First World War proportions that would eventually draw in other European nations. Great Britain (its exemption would have been understood when the word “European” was used in those days) would remain apart from the fighting while the continent became bled dry and wasted, primed for the establishment of a new order.

In the film, although there are no names named, Britain is obviously involved in the war, and its territory amongst that upon which a technocratic elite descends to “clean up” after the fighting is over (the phrase is in bold because the reader needs to remember it). The population suffers dreadful annihilation from fleets of aircraft flying over unmistakenly famous white cliffs. The film is such obvious propaganda, with Orwellian “WAR tuth” newspaper posters thrust into the foreground, that it has to be conditioning of Britons for coming war.  But if the film is for psychological manipulation, then is the book also?

What we could well suspect, coming at this from a post-9/11 perspective, is that the book was written in the particular style chosen for it because it was messaging a vision for the future on behalf of a British Government – that it is, the Establishment that is captive to the ruling hierarchy – that had certain ambitions. In “The Shape of Things to Come” future war is presented as history – and the effect is to create a sense of certainty in the reader’s mind as he imagines himself many years hence digesting undisputable facts. Of course, the method is powerful for conditioning expectation into people who were actually, although they didn’t know it, on the brink of war.

Indeed, in the book Britain does not remain unaffected – it sees an economic disaster because Europe cannot buy the weapons it needs from across the Channel, and so they are supplied on credit. Unable to collect its debts, Britain becomes impoverished also – by which we should suppose that it is the British people who become destitute. Lest we forget, the book makes clear that there is, at first, an economic boom, and of course, this wealth would disproportionately and ultimately end up in the hands of a few who would gain from the war (that they had engineered) and later would undoubtedly prove to be a bolster against general decline and flat-out failure. They would then finance the “Air Police” (all members off the fields of Eton if the film is anything to go by) – the “clean up” operation. Moreover, poverty in the masses doesn’t mean obliterated property and indiscriminate threat to elite life like bombs do. The plan of soft kill would be ideal for an elite who also lived in a Britain that needed to be “cleaned up”.

Historians unanimously talk of how “Britain” lost out after World War II – but this all depends on which Britain it is you are talking about. The British Government established the British socialist state (this is not a good thing – some people need telling). The British Government also managed to smash Germany. It occurs to the author, when he scans 20th century history, that it does appear that, fearing a rival hegemony, the primary concern of the British ruling elite since the formation of Germany was to contain it, and certainly never let it gain access to the Middle East, the Black Sea and Central Asia. And so, when the British wangled the First World War through the activity of its intelligence networks and its backstabbing diplomacy – as some argue it did – it might have been through concern about the German-Austro-Hungarian-Ottoman dynamic (see the Baghdad railway). Germany wasn’t defeated militarily in the First World War – hence the sense of being done wrong by at Versailles – but the imperial blocs of Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans were torn up. The author doesn’t play many computer games – generally they are the sure fire way to a smaller intellect – but he does like war simulations, which inform him that when old countries are resurrected, it isn’t about love of the liberated people, it is more to do with denying territory and wealth to an enemy. It is about domination. Germany suffered from such dismemberment too, and what with the total denuding of its allies, Germany would surely be easier to take in the next war. Well, the Danzig Corridor, springing up as part of newly re-created Poland, would be a bone of contention and perhaps even a trigger. Was it intended as such?

A recent movie tells of the British evacuation from Dunkirk – again, the author has not seen it, but guesses that it would not even barely suggest that the Germans let the British get away. The Germans, as certain historians are increasingly doing well to remind us, didn’t want to fight the British, and indeed, if the Germans read the likes of Wells’ playbook, which they must have, they might have been sure (at first) that the British didn’t want to reciprocate. Indeed, it was true to a certain extent. For four years the British would not take the Germans on in Europe. Before Dunkirk there had been the Norway skirmish, of course. Now, Wikipedia tells a version of history whereby the British reacted to a German invasion; in fact, the Germans got wind of Plan R4 – an operation to starve the Germans of resources. The British were out manoeuvred by the Germans – and could we suppose this encounter could have caused a certain thought to cross German minds; to wit, the British didn’t want to be in the fight enough to win Norway? The Russian complaint that there was nothing being done to take the pressure off of Operation Barbarossa is infamous. Of course, we might say that Britain was absorbing the Blitz – but think again. It was the British people – those who were destined to be “cleaned up” – that were on the receiving end of German punishment after the British had provoked them by targeting German civilian centres (this is now common knowledge).

On the other hand, as soon as the Italians declared war, the British were invading Libya.  And when the Germans threatened British interests in the Middle East through North Africa, everything was thrown into the Eighth Army. If we consider the European campaign in World War II reflecting on Wells’ “history”, then can we see that Britain would have come into the war – one that it helped engineer – with a strategy of letting Germany wear itself down, and strangling it a la the first outing? And if the British people came in harm’s way and were tenderised before the end of the war, then this would only prove advantageous for that intended “cleaning up”.

When we start to question some of the supposed certainties that we have been conditioned with through the official narrative, we start to have questions like, who was the aggressor after all? Indeed, who won the war? Some British people think that the EU is an extension of Germany, and as such signifies ultimate victory for the side that was supposed to have lost World War II. Yes, it is true that the Nazis drew up plans for an European Economic Community when they were still expanding in the early 40s – while Germany was evidently defying the British plan whereby it would become bogged down, and Britons would become destitute through arms sales – and it was looking to turn Europe into economically aligned, or vassal states, or directly governed provinces. This wouldn’t have been a good outcome for Britain – so Germany had to be engaged. Note, it was when Germany was made to fight to defend its conquests that much of the devastation of Europe occurred. The country itself was dismembered and bombed back to the stone-age. Then it was pinned to France, also together with the also-defeated Italy, to form the core of the EU. Do we think that a victorious Nazi Germany would have dreamt up the same fate for itself? The important thing to understand is the EU as a Masonic outcome, whichever faction delivers it. The EU is of enormous value to the British Government (do we really imagine it wants to let the EU become Greater Germany through Brexit?†), and this tells us who really won the war.

The EU as we know it seems to have come out of the Bilderberg Group: which is a committee underneath the higher reaches of hierarchal ladder of the secret society that is the Western elite. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a co-founder of the Bilderberg Group, had been a Nazi – he had also been an involved in Allied war planning, and of course was related through descent from Prince Albert to British Royalty – all this suggesting to the author that further up the chain is where we will find one set of people pulling all the strings to make all the different factions dance.

The distinction between factions becomes blurred as we are removed from them at their origins through time, but the outcome is always the same – rule of the technocrat over the masses – made cattle-like by that rule. When the author tries to apportion blame, and identify names and faces, everything points back to the people who orchestrated the Victorian reaction to Georgian Palladianism: gentrification (the word shouldn’t have the bad connotation it does today – it means everyone rising on an economic tide) and liberalism and escaping from a centralised controlling Statist Roman-Anglican church (some people in Chichester wanted to pull down the cathedral), and having an understanding of the importance of civic responsibility. The reactionaries were the likes of King and Church Tories, and the Medievalists of the Oxford and Arts and Crafts movement (note that the Palace of Westminster is in the Gothic style). That dealt with culture. As for suppression of competition through international finance and geopolitics, at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th a lot of American money married into the British aristocracy – this was Winston Churchill’s own heritage. And then there was the formation of the Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs – forerunner of the Council on Foreign Relations – who were doing the same plotting as Wells from his Fabian side of the spectrum. Then there was the formation of the Federal Reserve, which is thought of in some US patriot circles as nothing less than a British banksterist coup of American government: an appropriation of American resources by the people who ruled Britain.

When we look at the mainstream history – even before we get around to the likes of Albert Pike, Albert Mackey and Manly P. Hall – can we deny that there is nothing that is wrong with the world in which we live that didn’t come out of the Victorians and their 20th century offspring – whose children still rule us? And still we cannot rid ourselves of them; as a 2016 Guardian article points out: “the descendants of the wealthy of 1858 are still much wealthier than the average person in 2012”.

Please go and read this Guardian piece (here), because it is astonishing. Beware, there is an emphasis on wealth being retained through inheritance, and a solution to provoke social mobility being redistribution of wealth. This is to be expected, and also completely bogus. The redistribution of wealth is already applied, and it hurts the middle class – as it is intended to. The Victorian ruling class, that still rules us, stays wealthy and in power by destroying competition, whether it be in foreign lands, or whether it be domestically.

Seeing as this article is film-themed, the first Robert Downey Jr “Sherlock Holmes” movie is not too far from the truth when it tells of an aristocrat gaining political power through conspiring with others in a freemasonic secret society – which not only gives them the means to take power, but also (and it is not gone into in depth in the film) the justification because of how the right to rule, as they see it, germinates from some claimed descent from the technocratic classes of the past. British Israelism, or Zionism, is the distinctly Anglo-American branch of Masonry – another take on Aryanism with the special people being a lost tribe of Israel – and (as dumb as it sounds to a sane person) it is all about believing in authority to rule being ascribed to descent from King David (what we should take seriously is the ambition to build a metaphorical Temple of Solomon, or the New World Order – or “cleaning up”, as Wells put it). In the City of London there is the Temple, an area with historical links to the Templars – a Masonic bankster community in itself. The Temple in the City is described as the centre of English law; it is where the authorities acting on behalf of the London Corporation are situated, and the London Corporation is effectively a council for the ruling class. Like any Masonic community, its religion is Mystery Babylon, of which John of Patmos had this to report (he’s not talking about an actual city, folks):

Babylon the great is fallen… For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies…

And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning…

And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more…

The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing…

for thy [Babylon’s] merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived…

And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

And then there was this great advice:

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


† Some British alternative media is presenting Brexit in its entirety as a psyop – and showing its true colours by doing so. The vote itself was incredibly important because it established British independence as the lawful state of being for the country – and the British Government must comply. The vote also legitimises defence against Government denial by all and any means.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.